Almaz-Antey S-400 Triumph / SA-21 Growler TABM/SAM

[Josh_TN]

The МИГ-29 and СУ-27 available in the AFU were put into service in 1982-85. F-16 in 1978. That is, the AFU planes will even be newer. Or are we talking about some new modification of the F-16? The whole question is the integration of the system. In fact, integrating the HARM system in the same МИГ-29 is not difficult at all (but of course I will not advise it). We have already shot down many dozens of HARM missiles. Many of them came to us in almost complete condition. We take it apart, let's see what's inside, of course. But that's not the point. As the respected Grandfather Biden said quite correctly: "The conflicts around Ukraine and Israel will bring progress to the world." It is already obvious that according to the results of it, many weapons systems and even individual types of troops can be safely thrown into the trash of history. We didn't understand a lot earlier. And you didn't understand a lot either. Including those lessons that you should have learned already after the Vietnam War.

The C version of the F-16 came later than 1978. But anyway, it was a mistake for me to bother addressing age. The F-16s are simply much more compatible with western weapons than the Soviet machines because they were updated and have been fully integrated with them.

 

[Brian M. B. Pedersen]

The Dutch F-16s destined for Ukraine have been upgraded throughout their service lives with the Dutch air force. Added since their introduction: adapted for and using Litening-, LANTIRN-, FLIR- and ECM-pods, night vision goggles, terrain following system, AN/APG-66v2 radar, integration of AIM-9X - IRIS-T - AMRAAM - GBU-47.
I would expect the Danish F-16s are much the same.

The RDAF F-16 are F-16AM and F-16BM, with a mix of Block 5 and Block 10/15 if i remember correct.
They can be recognised by the radome colour: Black radome is block 5´s and gray radome is block 10/15.
I asked a few years back, and the RDAF F-16´s are not in any way equipped to be armed with any type of ARM and neither is SEAD/DEAD part of their training and they are not electronically wired to have any pod on the intake except the Litening G3 pod.
They are certified to use the AIM-9X and AIM-120, i do not believe that they have any TFR capability either, since i do not see any situation where that would be part of RDAF task.
During the Libyan intervention, they had to borrow NVG from the other airforces since they did not have NVG issued.
Our F-16 have approximately 5-7 years left on their airframe and that is calculated in RDAF flighthours; i asked how many hours a average RDAF pilot have and RDAF could not tell me that and they could not confirm weither or not they had the minimum required by NATO.
I assume that in wartime duty, the RDAF F-16 only have 2 - 3 left until they are no longer serviceable, if that long.
Yes the RDAF F-16 have been updated regulary, but that does not mean that they have the newest of anything, "Upgraded/updated" in the Danish military means nothing, it only means "not as yesterday".
I speak from personal experince from 2½ year in the Army and the Navy or Airforce is no differend.

 

[GregoryUSSR]

The C version of the F-16 came later than 1978. But anyway, it was a mistake for me to bother addressing age. The F-16s are simply much more compatible with western weapons than the Soviet machines because they were updated and have been fully integrated with them.

I see. Although we thought it would be a German "Tornado" or a French "Rafale" . You have the whole of Europe by the balls and you can easily force them to do what you need. Why substitute the F-16 while undressing the unfortunate Holland? After all, these are reputational costs. Yes, yes - in the topic about Abrams, the guys explained to me that you don't care about reputational damage. But I think this is only due to the fact that you have not seriously encountered this phenomenon yet. This is very unpleasant. You may not care. But the rest of the world also sees everything and it doesn't care.

 

[NMaude]

We have already shot down many dozens of HARM missiles.

Where is the proof that the Russians have shot down lots of AGM-88s? The AGM-88 is a very small target with a very small RCS and once its' rocket motor is burnt-out an even smaller IR signature.

 

[GregoryUSSR]

Where is the proof that the Russians have shot down lots of AGM-88s? The AGM-88 is a very small target with a very small RCS and once its' rocket motor is burnt-out an even smaller IR signature.

She's not that small. With two such HARM missiles, the same СУ-27 has an ЭПР point of about 20m2. And considering that HARM shoots not far away, the fighter plane needs several tens or even hundreds of kilometers to fly in the air defense zone when everyone sees it. And, the rocket itself is well scanned.

 

[NMaude]

She's not that small.

The AGM-88 is a large missile I was referring to its' RCS not actual physical size also from what I understand whenever they are used they air-defence systems are decoyed with ADM-160 MALDs and as for the photograph that doesn't prove anything it just shows an AGM-88 that has been expended (Its warhead has detonated), without further data all I see is what's left of a missile that has been successfully fired.

 

[Brian M. B. Pedersen]

Where is the proof that the Russians have shot down lots of AGM-88s? The AGM-88 is a very small target with a very small RCS and once its' rocket motor is burnt-out an even smaller IR signature.

I could be wrong here, but as far as i remember, the NVA could see Zuni´s on there radar screen back in the 70´s, so it would not be unlikely if HARM could be shot down by one of the many different complexes Russia have.
The HARM is more than 30 years old now, so im sure that any adversary have had plenty of time to find a counter for it, be that kinetic or electronically.
And i fully agree that the above photo shows a HARM (most likely) succesfully fired, but it does not prove that it exploded by its own fuse or whether or not it was shot down with its warhead either exploding or simply broke off.
Also, i dont have any proof at all that we recieved indirect fire over 40 times against Camp Danevang in Iraq, but it did happend; a lack of proof is just that, a lack of proof, a lack of proof does not equal it never happend.

Im not taking sides here, im just stating that a lack of proof does not say anything, and again, just because the complexes may be able to shoot down a HARM, it does not proof that they actually did.

Proof is not what ones knowledege finds most logical or plausible.

 

[Josh_TN]

We are getting far off topic.

 

[GregoryUSSR]

The AGM-88 is a large missile I was referring to its' RCS not actual physical size also from what I understand whenever they are used they air-defence systems are decoyed with ADM-160 MALDs and as for the photograph that doesn't prove anything it just shows an AGM-88 that has been expended (Its warhead has detonated), without further data all I see is what's left of a missile that has been successfully fired.

It was this rocket that did not explode. It just fell down being knocked down. When a rocket explodes when it hits the target, only small fragments remain from it. The most interesting thing about the AGM-88 rocket is its 2nd and 3rd guidance channels with memory.
I was talking about the effective scattering area of the radio beam. The ЭПР point is called.

 

[NMaude]

When a rocket explodes when it hits the target, only small fragments remain from it.

Actually, no, generally speaking the rocket-motor survives in one piece, I've seen photographs from Ukraine of spent IRIS-T and PAC-3 missiles and the propulsion usually survives in one piece. Those surviving pieces can be serious hazard to those on the ground depending where they crash.

The most interesting thing about the AGM-88 rocket is its 2nd and 3rd guidance channels with memory.
I was talking about the effective scattering area of the radio beam.

You will have to elaborate on that please as I'm not certain what you're referring to.

On another note I assume once the Ukrainians identified these SA-21 decoys they're quickly destroyed by a drone equipped with blast/fragmentation grenades?

 

[GregoryUSSR]

On another note I assume once the Ukrainians identified these SA-21 decoys they're quickly destroyed by a drone equipped with blast/fragmentation grenades?

Listen to Unmade, I propose to shift our discussion a little just to the СВП (means of air attack) against ПВО (anti-air defense). In order not to politicize the dispute and not to attract too much attention from the FBI or the ФСБ. With your permission, I distance myself from specific brands and models of weapons. So:
Your anti-radar missile has a warhead mass of 66 kilograms. It's about like a 7-inch (178 mm) projectile. If the warhead worked normally, how can you explain how the entire rocket body can remain intact? This happens either if the missile was shot down, or if it just fell short of the target.
Customization. The fact that the F-16 supposedly can, but the МИГ-29/СУ-27 cannot, which these missiles were put on... What exactly do you want to tune your rocket to? On the frequency of the transmitter of the radar emitter of the enemy's air defense system? But this is not some C-125 air defense system like in the movie "Top Gun". Modern ЗРС have multi-mode modulation in frequency and amplitude of the signal. You tuned rocket to one frequency, and in the meantime he switched it to another. Let's say you set it to 1000 MHz. And he clicks on 800 MHz. Or performs smooth modulation over the entire operating spectrum with a modulation frequency of 10 Hz, for example. What will your rocket see? White noise? That's why your designers made the 3rd guidance channel with memory and recognition of optical graphics. On the one hand, it's cool, but on the other hand, it's done out of desperation. Due to the inability to provide reliable guidance on the main radio channel. There is also protection from optical (or optical-location) cannels ОЛС.
Next. Any aerodynamic target is characterized by an effective radio signal scattering area. The ЭПР point is called. This is the part of the electromagnetic radiation that returns back to the radar receiver. An ordinary modern fighter of the F-15/СУ-27 type has an ЭПР point of 5-15 m2. F-117 - about 0.1 m2. F-22 - about 0.3 m2. Your rocket glows pretty well too. And its size allows to see it with a radar starting to scan from 2.4 GHz and above. In order for the target to be visible in the radio range, its dimensions must be at least half the wavelength of electromagnetic radiation (otherwise diffraction). And then only the question of the power of the transmitter. Which in a narrowly directed range can be very large. And in the case of a pulse transmitter, this is not a big problem. Its operation is controlled by a pulse generator (ГИ), which follows with a relatively low repetition rate of the order of hundreds of pulses per second. Powerful pulses are fed to a high frequency generator (ГВЧ), which produces very powerful short pulses of high frequency (ВЧ) oscillations. For example, if the ВЧ oscillation power is 100 kW, and the pulse duration is 1 microsecond, at a repetition rate of 100 Hz, the average power of the ГВЧ will be only 10 watts, i.e. less than the power of a conventional desk lamp. Therefore, even a powerful pulse generator is compact enough and does not overheat during prolonged operation.
A tuned anti-radar missile is flying. The entire range of her guidance radio channel is clogged with white noise. It flies by GPS and ОЛС memory. Flies to the end and falls. Or will shot down by one of the many missile tanks. For example like this:

 

[NMaude]

If the warhead worked normally, how can you explain how the entire rocket body can remain intact?

I never said the entire missile body remains intact when the warhead detonates however the rocket-motor section is of robust construction and generally speaking remains intact after the warhead has detonated, another example is the AIM-9 Sidewinder. I've seen photographs of AIM-9 GCUs (Guidance and Control Unit) that are completely intact after the warhead has detonated. Missiles like these don't blow up into little fragments when their warheads detonate, there are substantial pieces leftover and that AGM-88 looks like its' warhead had successfully detonated.

 

[Forest Green]

She's not that small. With two such HARM missiles, the same СУ-27 has an ЭПР point of about 20m2. And considering that HARM shoots not far away, the fighter plane needs several tens or even hundreds of kilometers to fly in the air defense zone when everyone sees it. And, the rocket itself is well scanned.
View attachment 712171

Dubious evidence of one, let alone 'lots'.

 

[GregoryUSSR]

Dubious evidence of one, let alone 'lots'.

Forest and what exactly is the doubt here? The "naked" fighter of the 4th generation is about 5-7 m2. The same fighter with missiles, tanks and bombs hanging on the pylons - the ЭПР is 15m2 at once. With missiles of the HARM - 20m2 type. АСП has a very big impact on the target profile.

 

[Ronny]

Customization. The fact that the F-16 supposedly can, but the МИГ-29/СУ-27 cannot, which these missiles were put on... What exactly do you want to tune your rocket to? On the frequency of the transmitter of the radar emitter of the enemy's air defense system? But this is not some C-125 air defense system like in the movie "Top Gun". Modern ЗРС have multi-mode modulation in frequency and amplitude of the signal. You tuned rocket to one frequency, and in the meantime he switched it to another. Let's say you set it to 1000 MHz. And he clicks on 800 MHz. Or performs smooth modulation over the entire operating spectrum with a modulation frequency of 10 Hz, for example. What will your rocket see? White noise? That's why your designers made the 3rd guidance channel with memory and recognition of optical graphics. On the one hand, it's cool, but on the other hand, it's done out of desperation. Due to the inability to provide reliable guidance on the main radio channel. There is also protection from optical (or optical-location) cannels ОЛС.

What the hell are you on about?
You don't need to "turn or set the AGM-88 seeker into specific frequency"
Even AGM-88A produced 4 decades ago used a broadband spiral antenna that can cover from the C through to the J band (2-20 GHz), and frequency hoping is not some recent technology at all. Decade old mechanical radars are already capable of that. The original HARM seekers was even better than many basic RWR carried by aircraft.
Never mind the fact that AGM-88 seeker have been continuously improve with each version of the missile. The AGM-88 C version produced 3 decade ago used much better seeker and software compared to A and B version, it has a broadband receiver uses logarithmic amps to provide a wide dynamic range, with the receiver implemented using stripline techniques. The receiver employs crystal video receiver (CVR) and superheterodyne techniques which capable of sorting threat pulse trains in high density environments, from the C through to the J bands (0.5-20 GHz). The C-model HARM receiver has superior sensitivity and pulse de-interleaving performance over previous models, and is thus able to discriminate individual emitters in higher threat density environments, at much greater ranges compared to previous models. Yet, AGM-88C is not the most modern HARM used by USA, the most modern one is AGM-88G that is currently in LRIP, while the backbone of the fleet now is AGM-88E with digital seeker with much greater coverage and FoV compared to AGM-88C

Next. Any aerodynamic target is characterized by an effective radio signal scattering area. The ЭПР point is called. This is the part of the electromagnetic radiation that returns back to the radar receiver. An ordinary modern fighter of the F-15/СУ-27 type has an ЭПР point of 5-15 m2. F-117 - about 0.1 m2. F-22 - about 0.3 m2. Your rocket glows pretty well too. And its size allows to see it with a radar starting to scan from 2.4 GHz and above.

RCS is really depend on direction and frequency.
For example: an F-35 with no RAM coating can have median RCS of 0.06 m2 in X-band, yet in VHF, that number increased to 0.74 m2.

In order for the target to be visible in the radio range, its dimensions must be at least half the wavelength of electromagnetic radiation (otherwise diffraction)

Diffraction only mean the radio wave get scattered in a wide cone, it does not mean the object become invisible. In fact, edge diffraction is actually a bad thing when you try to reduce RCS

 

[Ronny]

Forest and what exactly is the doubt here? The "naked" fighter of the 4th generation is about 5-7 m2. The same fighter with missiles, tanks and bombs hanging on the pylons - the ЭПР is 15m2 at once. With missiles of the HARM - 20m2 type. АСП has a very big impact on the target profile.

Their RCS surely increased with weapons, but not to the 20 m2 range, especially for small/medium fighters.

Rafale-C radar scattering simulation

Introduction Rafale is a French twin-engine, canard delta wing, multirole fighter aircraft designed and built by Dassault Aviation. Rafale was developed as the 4.5 generation fighter intended to re…

basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavionics.wordpress.com

A Rafale with external fuel tank and 6 AASM + 2 Mica can still have median frontal RCS of around 2.5 m2

 

[Ronny]

She's not that small. With two such HARM missiles, the same СУ-27 has an ЭПР point of about 20m2. And considering that HARM shoots not far away, the fighter plane needs several tens or even hundreds of kilometers to fly in the air defense zone when everyone sees it. And, the rocket itself is well scanned.

The lack of holes on that HARM wreckage seem to indicate that it either missed target or just felt short. If it was shootdown by SAM, I would think the body would be full of holes. Though to be fair, legacy HARM probably quite easy target for modern Russian SAM

 

[Brian M. B. Pedersen]

RCS is really depend on direction and frequency.
For example: an F-35 with no RAM coating can have median RCS of 0.06 m2 in X-band, yet in VHF, that number increased to 0.74 m2.

Diffraction only mean the radio wave get scattered in a wide cone, it does not mean the object become invisible. In fact, edge diffraction is actually a bad thing when you try to reduce RCS

Very interesting material, can i ask for the source?

 

[Ronny]

Very interesting material, can i ask for the source?

Here is the link

F-35A Radar scattering simulation

Introduction F-35 is the backbone of American stealth fighter fleet, it is intended to replace F-16, F-18C/D, Harrier and A-10. There are currently 3 versions of F-35 which are F-35A, F-35B and F-3…

basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavionics.wordpress.com

RF-IR Stealth (Techniques/Benefits)

Brief : The advantage of detecting, identifying and engaging a target while stay invisible is undeniable, thus for years designers has been attempting to minimize the ability of radar, RWR and Inf…

basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavionics.wordpress.com

 

[GregoryUSSR]

Even AGM-88A produced 4 decades ago used a broadband spiral antenna that can cover from the C through to the J band (2-20 GHz), and frequency hoping is not some recent technology at all. Decade old mechanical radars are already capable of that. The original HARM seekers was even better than many basic RWR carried by aircraft.

How to understand - sort the sequence of pulses? Here comes a rocket with a frequency analyzer. There are hundreds of radiation sources in front of the rocket. Most of them do not belong to the ЗРС (these may be self-propelled air defense systems of another type or aircraft). And some of them are simulators, whose radar signature (including the timing of the ГИ pulses) is completely identical to the ЗРС in everything, including the power and amplitula of the signal. Okay - the rocket sorted targets. There are 100 targets with the "right" parameters (and 300 more targets with "incorrect" parameters). Which one will we attack? Moreover, the rocket itself flies slowly, is perfectly visible and accompanied. To use electronic warfare or weapons to kill is a matter of technique. And most likely from a small or medium-power rocket tank. No one will spend hypersonic ЗУР on a missile like HARM (the projectile is much larger than the target in this case).

RCS is really depend on direction and frequency.
For example: an F-35 with no RAM coating can have median RCS of 0.06 m2 in X-band, yet in VHF, that number increased to 0.74 m2.

I was not much mistaken. And how much will the F-16 have? And how much will the F-16 have with the suspension of two AGM-88s? Also 0,006 m2? I doubt. And under cross irradiation with different ranges?

A Rafale with external fuel tank and 6 AASM + 2 Mica can still have median frontal RCS of around 2.5 m2

The Rafale is already a relatively new aircraft. Generations 4+ or 5-. He's doing more or less well with low visibility. But There are no Rafales there. We are still talking about the F-16.

 

[GregoryUSSR]

Diffraction only mean the radio wave get scattered in a wide cone, it does not mean the object become invisible. In fact, edge diffraction is actually a bad thing when you try to reduce RCS

Does the reflection of the signal during diffraction really take place? Have you don't confused the diffraction and refraction of the signal in the VHF band?

 

[paralay]

For the Russian air defense system, the F-16 fighter with two missiles on an external suspension will have an RCS of 1.77 m2 + 1 m2 + 1 m2 = 3.8 m2

 

[GregoryUSSR]

I understand you are proceeding from the irradiation frequency of 1 MHz?

 

[GregoryUSSR]

I guess the confidence in being able to shoot F-16s down is inversely proportional to the diplomatic hoohah kicked up about supply of same

Since Dmitry Medvedev spent much of the summer in a flap about the Dutch and Danish F-16s being a significant escalation you'd have to take that as being a resounding vote of no confidence in Russian SAM and counter air forces

Normal people take any relatively modern weapon seriously. I don't think the F-16 is nonsense or something frivolous. Of course this is a threat.

 

[Ronny]

How to understand - sort the sequence of pulses? Here comes a rocket with a frequency analyzer. There are hundreds of radiation sources in front of the rocket. Most of them do not belong to the ЗРС (these may be self-propelled air defense systems of another type or aircraft). And some of them are simulators, whose radar signature (including the timing of the ГИ pulses) is completely identical to the ЗРС in everything, including the power and amplitula of the signal. Okay - the rocket sorted targets. There are 100 targets with the "right" parameters (and 300 more targets with "incorrect" parameters). Which one will we attack? Moreover, the rocket itself flies slowly, is perfectly visible and accompanied. To use electronic warfare or weapons to kill is a matter of technique. And most likely from a small or medium-power rocket tank. No one will spend hypersonic ЗУР on a missile like HARM (the projectile is much larger than the target in this case).

A radar that can hoping across different frequency is quite different issue to solve from sorting out multiple transmitter. To solve the issue of frequency hoping, the most basic solution is to use a wide band receiver. Which is something even AGM-88A already have.

To distingush between the SAM fire control radar and multiple radiation source on the battle field, you rely on the frequency, pulse width, PRF, scan pattern, and even pulse strength (which is quite effective way to sort them out if you have support jamming like MALD-J). Sure there are multiple radio source on battlefield but their pulse characteristic are very different from SAM fire control radar. Yes, you can build simulation that have the same operating frequency/pulse width/ PRF and scan pattern as a real fire control radar. But those things are expensive and you can’t really throw out 100 of them per real target. Furthermore, the common tactic of strike aircraft is to launch MALD decoys as bait, then when SAM batteries try to attack them, you launch your HARMs.

I was not much mistaken.Also 0,006 m2? I doubt.

In the simulation I posted: the outer fuselage of F-35 is assumed to be perfect electric conductor, so they reflect radiowave 100%. That because it is not possible to get any data on the kind of RAM that F-35 actually use. So the RCS result from that simulation will be greater than the RCS of actual F-35.

Rafale is already a relatively new aircraft. Generations 4+ or 5-. He's doing more or less well with low visibility. But There are no Rafales there. We are still talking about the F-16.And how much will the F-16 have with the suspension of two AGM-88s?

As I previously mentioned, the simulation only taking into account outer shaping + internal inlet and engine and radar, it does not take into account the type of Radar absorbing material used and instead treat the surface as perfect conductor. So a normal F-16 with ironball paint will have lower RCS.
Anyway, purely in term of shaping, F-16 and Rafale are quite closely matched , even though Rafale is quite a bit bigger than F-16

 

[Ronny]

Does the reflection of the signal during diffraction really take place?

Yes it does, it literally the reason why stealth fighters needed edge treatment on their leading edges.

Have you don't confused the diffraction and refraction of the signal in the VHF band?

No I don’t. They are completely different phenomenons. Refraction are the basically the bending of radio wave due to atmospheric condition.

 

[paralay]

The RCS of the aircraft in this figure is more than 10m2

 

[MihoshiK]

The RCS of the aircraft in this figure is more than 10m2

I'm glad at least one of us is able to eyeball this.

 

[Ronny]

The RCS of the aircraft in this figure is more than 10m2

RCS is not a single value, when you want to claim an aircraft have RCS of 10 m2, ok you could be correct, but the question is: at what frequency and what aspect?. Are we talking about median value? Average value? instantaneous value?. Lobe distribution is quite an important aspect when talking about aircraft RCS.
Take the F-16 vs F-35 for example, their median and average RCS at some frequency might look very similar, but F-16 have very big scattering lobe at directly frontal aspect while F-35 concentrated them to the side.

 

[GregoryUSSR]

In the simulation I posted: the outer fuselage of F-35 is assumed to be perfect electric conductor, so they reflect radiowave 100%. That because it is not possible to get any data on the kind of RAM that F-35 actually use. So the RCS result from that simulation will be greater than the RCS of actual F-35.

Reading this, I begin to doubt that your RCS parameter is the same as our ЭПР.... RCS is not the total area of reflection of all faces and surfaces of an aerodynamic target (including exhaust and air vortices), but only that part of it that is reflected back to the receiver at an angle of 180 degrees. Am I right or am I wrong?

No I don’t. They are completely different phenomenons. Refraction are the basically the bending of radio wave due to atmospheric condition.

If you look at the picture shown, then it is refraction that is shown there. There are two layers of different densities. There is a certain refractive index in their boundary layer, by which the radio beam is deflected. In the case of pure diffraction, no deviation occurs. ЭМВ simply does not notice the object. There can be some scattering only at critical frequencies.

As I previously mentioned, the simulation only taking into account outer shaping + internal inlet and engine and radar, it does not take into account the type of Radar absorbing material used and instead treat the surface as perfect conductor. So a normal F-16 with ironball paint will have lower RCS.
Anyway, purely in term of shaping, F-16 and Rafale are quite closely matched , even though Rafale is quite a bit bigger than F-16

I didn't know the F-16 was that good. We have always considered it a cheap and massive fighter of the 2nd line. F-15 - my respects. The F-14 is also famous. The mass media helped the F-18 a lot. The main movies plane. Even the F-5 is considered a cool "guy's" device in our country. Clear and sharp. But such planes as the F-16, F-8 - well, an airplane and an airplane. And it turns out he's not bad. Especially if it is painted with F-22 paint.

 

[paralay]

F-16 is dangerous only by the presence of AMRAAM

 

[NMaude]

We have always considered it a cheap and massive fighter of the 2nd line.

The F-16 is a very capable fighter and the latest models are a very different and much more capable beast than the first production F-16A/Bs introduced at the end of the 1970s. When the F-16 is introduced into Ukraine late next month/early January 2023 the Russian airforce is going to be in for a very unpleasant surprise.

Now on another note is there an estimate as to how many SA-21 Growler batteries Russia has left? The impression I've got is that they've lost about 5-6 of these very expensive and hard to replace missile batteries since early 2022.

F-16 is dangerous only by the presence of AMRAAM

It's still very dangerous without the AIM-120 AND it can carry a very wide range of weapons and other external stores.

 

[GregoryUSSR]

Now on another note is there an estimate as to how many SA-21 Growler batteries Russia has left?

Yes, it seems that none of them was lost.

 

[NMaude]

Yes, it seems that none of them was lost.

No, I can think off of the top of my head at least two batteries that have been lost in the past few months - one in Crimea and one in Luhansk.

 

[GregoryUSSR]

You must have confused it with the С-300.

 

[GregoryUSSR]

In general, artillery and ground-based rocket launchers are more dangerous for air defense systems than air attack vehicles (СВН). Moreover, as they proved to me here that with the standard activated warhead HARM, the rocket body remains intact.... How's that? If even the light body of the rocket almost does not suffer, then how much damage can it cause to the target? Smash the headlights and scratch the paint? As a maximum to damage the radar. But the batteries will remain almost intact.

 

[Scott Kenny]

In general, artillery and ground-based rocket launchers are more dangerous for air defense systems than air attack vehicles (СВН). Moreover, as they proved to me here that with the standard activated warhead HARM, the rocket body remains intact.... How's that? If even the light body of the rocket almost does not suffer, then how much damage can it cause to the target? Smash the headlights and scratch the paint? As a maximum to damage the radar. But the batteries will remain almost intact.

All a HARM is designed to do is take out the radar antennas. Bonus if the fragments manage to ignite a rocket, but all the design was ever intended to do was destroy the radars. No radars, no dangerous long range SAMs. Then you can fly a normal plane overhead and cluster bomb the SAM site into expensive confetti.

 

[NMaude]

You must have confused it with the С-300.

No, the reports I've read indicated that the destroyed missile sites were SA-21 Growlers NOT SA-12 Gladiator/SA-20 Gargoyle batteries.

 

[Ronny]

Reading this, I begin to doubt that your RCS parameter is the same as our ЭПР.... RCS is not the total area of reflection of all faces and surfaces of an aerodynamic target (including exhaust and air vortices), but only that part of it that is reflected back to the receiver at an angle of 180 degrees. Am I right or am I wrong?

I can't speak Russian but in English, this is the definition of RCS. And yes, of course it only count the part that get reflected back to the radar. Like why would you care about the part that not reflected back to the radar?

If you look at the picture shown, then it is refraction that is shown there. There are two layers of different densities. There is a certain refractive index in their boundary layer, by which the radio beam is deflected. In the case of pure diffraction, no deviation occurs. ЭМВ simply does not notice the object. There can be some scattering only at critical frequencies.

Refraction is the bending of radio wave when it transmitted from one medium into another.
Diffraction is the scattering of radio wave when it hit a small/sharp edge.
Think of it this way, let say you have a piece of glass. You shine a laser light into it. You can see the light inside the glass bend. That is Refraction. This is the principle of fiber optic
Now you paint the same piece of glass with black paint so laser light can't go through it. Then drill a tiny hole on that glass. Shine the same laser light into that hole. You see the light get spread out instead of remaining a point. That is diffraction. This is the principle of double slit experiment

 

[GregoryUSSR]

All a HARM is designed to do is take out the radar antennas. Bonus if the fragments manage to ignite a rocket, but all the design was ever intended to do was destroy the radars. No radars, no dangerous long range SAMs. Then you can fly a normal plane overhead and cluster bomb the SAM site into expensive confetti.

But, why. The ЗРС battery shoots perfectly even without radar. Taking data from the network of the general air defense system.